Welcome to DBSTalk

Welcome to DBSTalk. Our community covers all aspects of video delivery solutions including: Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS), Cable Television, and Internet Protocol Television (IPTV). We also have forums to discuss popular television programs, home theater equipment, and internet streaming service providers. Members of our community include experts who can help you solve technical problems, industry professionals, company representatives, and novices who are here to learn.

Like most online communities you must register to view or post in our community. Sign-up is a free and simple process that requires minimal information. Be a part of our community by signing in or creating an account. The Digital Bit Stream starts here!

Didn't News use to be ad free? I could swear at some point, it was standard practice for the news division of a network to be a 'loss', but it helped to prevent bias/slanting, because with no ad's, then you can focus on just news, and not non-news/ranting for ratings.
--
I'm sure you understand what i'm trying to say xD

Compared to today's commercial load, television used to be ad free.
Sponsorship mentions during shows turned into stand alone pre-taped commercials and the number of minutes for those commercials each hour has grown.

I am not old enough to remember news without commercials ... at least not the "standard" commercial load of other programming of the time. When one puts forth a channel that is presented as news all the time how would one do that without commercials? Hope that you made enough off of the overnight infomercials to pay for the daytime content?

It is unrealistic to expect a news channel to be commercial free unless they get enough of their funding from other sources that they do not need commercials.

Although it is interesting that during breaking news ... a time when more eyes are tuned to the channel and more people are paying attention ... that cable news channels will go commercial free. When they do that it shows that the news is still important to the channel ... more important than the commercials. (I do not expect "commercial free" for lesser "breaking news" stories ... but when they do it for big stories it impresses me.)

Of course, every commercial break is an excuse for the viewer to check out the competition ... so by not taking breaks they can hold the audience "captive", increase ratings, and make more in ad sales in the future. At least that would be the cynical way of looking at it.

It wouldn't cost much for any remaining, oil pumping middle east dictatorship that wants to postpone victimization by the "Arab Spring" cover the operating costs of a low key, American Aljazerra, or to simply keep it the way it is in the United States now, primarily championing the plight of displaced Palestinians and oppressed Muslims. I think it could continue to do so without creating a firestorm that might elicit pressure to get it taken out of the basic tiers. I live in Washington, DC, where Aljazerra and Russia Today, and even a second Russia Today with Spanish audio accompanying time-shifted programming, are broadcast over the air yet never cause a public tremor.

I will reiterate here what I have said above, which is that most people who express opinions on Aljazerra simply haven't seen it. It is biased in favor of Muslims and Arabs but also in favor of downtrodden Africans. It is biased against the last vestiges of the colonial empires. Is that anti-American? Maybe, because we are still a substantial economic beneficiary of the last vestages of the colonial era, which include us paying tens or hundred of billions of dollars a year less for oil than we otherwise might if Saudi Arabia and Kuaitt and some Emirates I can't even correctly place on a map were ever ruled by governments that did not depend on U.S. support.

It is hard to comprehend how much money those families have. I did "business" with a teenager who is three generations younger than the ruling generation in one of those Sheikdoms, and he had a $2 million condominium all to himself while he attended a private high school here. Another guy in his early 20s from another of those countries with no job and very little on the ball lived in a $1.5 million condo in the same building and gave me a $100 tip when I connected him to DirecTV a decade ago. It created an awkward situation for me because he had added it into the check paying for the entire job, so I couldn't just decline it without doing something that was offensive in that he would have had to write another check, but I really didn't want to take it because it meant that if and when his TV ever went out (which it never did), it would be reasonable for him to expect an accelerated response from me, which is something I can't sell for $100.

Compared to today's commercial load, television used to be ad free. Sponsorship mentions during shows turned into stand alone pre-taped commercials and the number of minutes for those commercials each hour has grown.

I am not old enough to remember news without commercials ... at least not the "standard" commercial load of other programming of the time. When one puts forth a channel that is presented as news all the time how would one do that without commercials? Hope that you made enough off of the overnight infomercials to pay for the daytime content?

It is unrealistic to expect a news channel to be commercial free unless they get enough of their funding from other sources that they do not need commercials.

Although it is interesting that during breaking news ... a time when more eyes are tuned to the channel and more people are paying attention ... that cable news channels will go commercial free. When they do that it shows that the news is still important to the channel ... more important than the commercials. (I do not expect "commercial free" for lesser "breaking news" stories ... but when they do it for big stories it impresses me.)

Of course, every commercial break is an excuse for the viewer to check out the competition ... so by not taking breaks they can hold the audience "captive", increase ratings, and make more in ad sales in the future. At least that would be the cynical way of looking at it.

They might as well figure on leaving the Coke/Pepsi can on the news desk and use laptops with visible logos to cover the cost of commercial free breaking news.

Yeah, I think i'm thinking of when there weren't 24 hour news channels. Back when news was delivered by the networks (Tom Brokaw, Dan Rather, etc). I think i'll have to do some research on it!
--
It was bought up as a point in one of the Newsroom episodes (which, btw, overall I love the show).
--
Maybe I can find an old Cronkite show and watch it, see if it showed commercials xD

I find it odd that so many people today criticize newscasters for relying on teleprompters when Walter Cronkite, Chet Huntley, David Brinkley and Harry Reasoner instead just read typed reports.

Teleprompters have been a part of news broadcasts for a very long time (more than 25 years). There's alot of information that they have to communicate, and the goal is to do so accurately...so presenting it from text scrolls seems to have worked for a long time.

Yeah, I think i'm thinking of when there weren't 24 hour news channels. Back when news was delivered by the networks (Tom Brokaw, Dan Rather, etc). I think i'll have to do some research on it!--It was bought up as a point in one of the Newsroom episodes (which, btw, overall I love the show).--Maybe I can find an old Cronkite show and watch it, see if it showed commercials xD

My memory of televised TV news goes back to the days before the Kennedy assassination. There were always commercials during the news. In fact on some news sets there was an advertiser's logo prominently displayed. More blatant than the Coke cans or Dell logos on laptops of today.

Speaking of that tragic event, that may have been the first time that news broadcasts went commercial free. We had 4 days x 3 networks where the events were played out over and over again. That was a glimpse into the future "24-hour news cycle" (even though nearly all TV stations signed off nightly back then).

I find it odd that so many people today criticize newscasters for relying on teleprompters when Walter Cronkite, Chet Huntley, David Brinkley and Harry Reasoner instead just read typed reports.

The first tele-prompters I saw were paper based. Typed scripts that were pulled past a CCTV camera that fed the monitors under the cameras. The anchor had a stenographer style control under the desk where they could move the script forward and back (although it at least one place there was no back).

Information is better presented when it is written out and re-written in advance. Even if the presenter does not read from a teleprompter, knowing what will be said via scripting is a good way to organize the thoughts. But I have seen instances where this goes bad. One local station ALWAYS has a toss back question for their live reports. When a live report ends the anchor asks a question about the story and the live reporter responds. It makes it seem like the anchor was listening along ... although can look like "we left this fact out of the story" and makes the reporter look bad for not giving the full details in the original report. When the toss back question WAS answered in the original report it makes it look like the anchor was not listening. I wish they would go without the toss back question.

When a station is running unscripted it is worse ... and I understand that while news is breaking there has to be a certain amount of unscripted work. But the concept of writing out what one is going to say, organizing the thoughts and presenting them can still be done.

HBO's "Newsroom" is good at showing how much goes on before the hour that we see people on the air. On the better shows we are seeing the end of people's work days. They have spent hours putting together a presentation for the viewer. Some of that may be based on the hours airing before their program and can be adjusted right up to the moment each story is aired.

That is why I see news reporting as being intentional. It is not just some reporter or anchor sitting around a coffee table chatting about what is going on in the world. It is a presentation where people have decided what to say and how they will say it. They have decided what to leave in and take out of the stories. They have produced the news. If they have added in a slant or not bothered to take one out it is intentional.

HBO's "Newsroom" is good at showing how much goes on before the hour that we see people on the air. On the better shows we are seeing the end of people's work days. They have spent hours putting together a presentation for the viewer. Some of that may be based on the hours airing before their program and can be adjusted right up to the moment each story is aired.

HBO's "Newsroom" is good at showing how much goes on before the hour that we see people on the air. On the better shows we are seeing the end of people's work days. They have spent hours putting together a presentation for the viewer. Some of that may be based on the hours airing before their program and can be adjusted right up to the moment each story is aired.

Yeah. From my understanding, most of the news stations have given it high marks for being pretty accurate as far as what goes into putting together a news broadcast.

I have listened to and viewed many, many hours of Al Jazeera programming without encountering even one incidence of what I would label "anti-American". Some of what they report may make certain people uncomfortable because it does not fit into their cherished worldviews or political dogmas but that does not make it untruthful or "anti-American". We as a nation need far more exposure to news and views from around the world. Here's a good commentary on the subject:

Agreed, very much so. And still no one has provided any documentary evidence that it's anti-American.

To use an old example...

It is far easier to stand on your porch and yell at the kids to get off of your lawn, than to get to know your neighbors and see whether or not the kids can safely play in your yard without causing trouble.

People tend to "like" what they know... and will take the familiar over the new in many circumstances. Offer them something different, and people tend to balk at the notion... sometimes to the extent of grasping at straws for reasons to explain their reluctance.

Every year, tens of thousands of Mexicans die because we choose to have drug laws and enforcement policies (or lack thereof) in the United States that make those Mexican deaths predictable and often, inevitable. So if Mexico determines to its satisfaction that someone in the United States is responsible for Mexican deaths, but if we determine that, for due process reasons, we can't do anything about it at this time, how would we feel if Mexico fired a missile targeting people in the United States that were causing deaths in Mexico, but doing so killed a few dozen Americans at the same time?

It is not like we randomly select civilian targets like a terrorist or suicide bomber.

True... but then do our news networks adequately and accurately cover our misdeeds in other countries? Like when we have had CIA agents attempting to assassinate other country leaders... or that time we tried to bomb Khadaffi (or however it is spelled this week) and instead killed another family member.

How about all those people years ago (minorities incidentally) we infected with syphilis and didn't treat? or the Native Americans that we tried to kill off with smallpox-blankets?

Yeah, some of that is old news... but every time we bring up a current event, about minorities or native americans or whatever, do we always cover the entire context and history of how we got to where we are now?

In all news there is a bit of he-said-she-said... and we tend to want to hear others say things that we already think ourselves... but it is very healthy to sit and listen to someone you don't agree with for a few minutes. Even if it doesn't change your mind, you at least are more informed.

It never hurts to listen. We talk all the time about how other countries don't want opposing viewpoints expressed... In this country we supposedly welcome all viewpoints and believe that IF you listen to all sides, the truth will win out in the end... so trying to extinguish or ignore something even if it truly is biased against America... well, that just seems short-sighted.

At worst you confirm everything you wanted to believe bad about "them"... at best you learn something new and perhaps soften your opinion against "them." Hard to consider either scenario a bad thing in the end to me.

^ How much coverage did My Lai get at the time? I didn't learn about it until some time later.

The more recent massacre is getting some coverage, but not much.

Why was there a policy of 'no US body bags/caskets' for so long until fairly recently? Somebody didn't want the US public to see the cost of what was happening.

Why aren't US media teams covering the middle east conflicts the way they did Viet Nam? Back them, combat correspondents sent stories from the field, even though many were heavily censored. Field reports like those weren't even allowed in Iraq.

US media is more focused on which half-wit bimbo celebrity got knocked up than telling people what's really happening. I'd say E! is more anti-America that this network.

US Media outlets don't even fully cover home based stories. Are we still seeing recovery efforts on Long Island or the Jersey shore? Not really, but we heard about that Snookie thing getting a new tattoo.

This story, copied here from Aljazerra's website, ran on AJE TV twice within the last hour and a half. I am waiting for it to come on again so I can compare the U.S. TV coverage to the content of this webite article. I'll try to reduce the width of the picture so as to avoid enlarging the column width, or perhaps a moderator can do it for me.

US strikes 'Taliban compound' in Pakistan

At least 16 suspected members of the Punjabi Taliban are believed killed in drone attack in South Waziristan.Last Modified: 06 Jan 2013 15:20

(I just edited out the accompanying map picture, which is non-inflammatory and incidental, until I can reduce it to column width)

At least 16 people have been killed and several others wounded in a US drone strike against a suspected Taliban compound in Pakistan's South Waziristan region, according to Al Jazeera's Islamabad bureau.

About eight to 10 missiles were reportedly fired hitting three different targets including a compound in Babar Zariat, a border village between North and South Waziristan.

More fighters were believed to be in the locations when they were hit on Sunday, meaning the death toll may rise, according to the Reuters news agency.

The compounds were believed to house fighters belonging to the Punjabi Taliban, a group with close links to al-Qaeda,intelligence officials said.

Al Jazeera identified the commander of the group as Qari Imran. But there is no confirmation on his death.

"We are not sure who was killed on the ground, whether they were indeed militants as claimed by the intelligence sources," Al Jazeera's Kamal Hyder said. "Normally, there are civilian casualties as well, particularly when compounds and houses are hit."

The Pakistan Taliban has established sanctuaries in the mountainous Babar area, 140km northeast of Wana, the headquarters of South Waziristan, officials added.

South Waziristan is controlled by the Pakistani army, which operates under an uneasy truce with fighters from the local Wazir tribe.

Sunday's strike follows the death of Mullah Nazir, a Waziri tribal leader, on Wednesday. Nazir supported attacks on US forces in Afghanistan but had signed two peace deals with the Pakistani army.

The above story page includes a link to this "related" new item from August. I don't remember if AJE showed this image. I will keep my eye on the television coverage of the above developing story to see how the subsequent coverage of the Pakistani reaction is covered.

As I am typing this, the above-referenced story just came around again and the reporter just said:

"In the past ten weeks, there has been an increase in the intensity of the attacks by the United States".

... and he referenced the hundred casualties of noncombatents in the other attacks. Pretty low key.

US air strikes hammer North Waziristan bases

At least 18 dead after hideouts attacked in border region a day after Pakistan summoned US diplomat over air raids.Last Modified: 24 Aug 2012 11:12

.A US air raid has killed 18 suspected fighters near Pakistan's border with Afghanistan, Pakistani officials have said.

Fourteen other people were also reportedly injured after drone-fired missiles hit three compounds used by the fighters in North Waziristan on Friday, a day after Islamabad summoned a US diplomat to protest a recent series of strikes that have caused much collateral damage and civilian casualties.

The raid was the fourth attack in the span of a week, as well as the most deadly.

Officials, on condition of anonymity, said each of the three compounds, which are often used hideouts for fighters when they cross into Afghanistan, was hit by two missiles.

The drone campaign, which Washington sees as vital to combating armed groups, including al-Qaeda, has been a cause of friction between the two countries, as Pakistan sees the strikes as an infringement on its sovereignty.

"A senior US diplomat was called to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and informed that the drone strikes were unlawful, against international law and a violation of Pakistan's sovereignty. It was emphatically stated that such attacks were unacceptable," the Pakistani foreign ministry said in a statement. The diplomat was not identified.

Last week, five allies of a powerful warlord, Hafiz Gul Bahadur, whose forces often strike US troops in Afghanistan, died when a US drone struck their hideout in North Waziristan.

Pakistan campaign

On Sunday, US drones fired a flurry of missiles into the Pakistani tribal area bordering Afghanistan, killing 10 suspected fighters. On Tuesday, missiles targeting a vehicle killed five more suspected fighters.

All the strikes this week occurred in North Waziristan, one of the last areas of the tribal region in which the Pakistani military has not conducted any operations against fighters.

The US has pushed repeatedly for Pakistan to open an offensive there, and US Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta recently said Pakistani authorities would start a campaign there soon.

So far, there are few signs on the ground of a large-scale offensive.

The drone strikes are unpopular in Pakistan because many people believe they mostly kill civilians, an allegation disputed by the US.

Despite Pakistan's public protests, the government is widely believed to have supported the attacks quietly in the past.

That cooperation has come under pressure as the relationship between the two countries has deteriorated.

The US shows no sign that it is willing to end or curtail the controversial usage of drones.